Delhi High Court

Akash Gupta vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 26 November, 2025

Author:
Sanjeev Narula

Bench:
Sanjeev Narula

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 19th November, 2025.
Pronounced on: 26th November, 2025.
Uploaded on: 26th November, 2025.
+ BAIL APPLN. 3131/2025 & CRL.M.A. 24315/2025
AKASH GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Hirein Sharma, Advocate.
versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP.
SI Mahendra Koli, P.S. Bhalswa
Dairy.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 20231 (erstwhile
Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
19732) seeks regular bail in proceedings arising from FIR No. 374/2023
registered under
Sections 498A
/
304B
/
of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at
P.S., Bhalswa Dairy.

2. The Applicant's earlier bail application before this Court was
dismissed as withdrawn on 11th March, 2025, at which stage charges had not
yet been framed and directions were issued for expeditious conduct of the
trial. As per the latest report received from the Trial Court, charges have
"BNSS"
"
Cr.P.C
."

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3131/2025 Page 1 of 10

Signing Date:26.11.2025

16:58:01

since been framed; however, no prosecution witness has been examined and
the trial has not made any meaningful progress. During this period, the
Applicant has undergone a further substantial span of incarceration. In these
circumstances, and having regard to the implications for personal liberty,
this Court considers it appropriate to entertain the present application and
examine the matter on its merits.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

3.1. The deceased, Moni Gupta, aged 25 years, married the Applicant,
Akash Gupta, on 01st December, 2016, and was residing with him at
Mukundpur, Delhi.

3.2. On 04th April, 2023, information was received at P.S. Bhalswa Dairy
that the deceased had been admitted to BJRM Hospital, Jahangirpuri, with
suspected history of poison ingestion. During treatment, she was declared
dead. The crime team inspected the matrimonial home, seized certain
exhibits including cloth material, a packet of "Laxman Rekha", a white solid
substance, and the deceased's damaged mobile phone. The body was
preserved for post-mortem and viscera was retained for FSL analysis. On the
basis of this information, the present FIR came to be registered.
3.3. During investigation, the father of the deceased stated that from the
early years of marriage, his daughter had been subjected to persistent cruelty
and dowry-related harassment by the Applicant and his family members. He
alleged that dowry articles worth approximately INR 2,51,000 were given at
the time of marriage, and an additional sum of INR 2,00,000 was paid in
2018, yet demands for money continued. It is further alleged that the
"
IPC
"

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3131/2025 Page 2 of 10

Signing Date:26.11.2025

16:58:01

deceased repeatedly informed her parents that she was being beaten and
pressurised to bring more money from her parental home. He also referred to
an earlier incident when the deceased left the matrimonial home and was
later found at Banaras Railway Station, allegedly after being assaulted by
the Applicant and his family members.

3.4. The statement of the minor daughter of the deceased, recorded under

Section 164
Cr.P.C. on 22nd June, 2023, alleges prior acts of violence against
the deceased as well as demand for money on the night preceding the
incident.

3.5. Investigation has since been completed, a chargesheet has been filed,
charges have been framed, and the matter is presently pending for recording
of prosecution evidence.

SUBMISSIONS

4. Ms. Nandita Rao, Senior Counsel for Applicant, urges the following
grounds in support of the Application:

4.1. The Applicant has been falsely implicated. During six years of
marriage, no complaint of cruelty or dowry demand was ever lodged by the
deceased or her family. Even in the present case, the prosecution has not
identified any specific date, time, or concrete instance of an alleged dowry
demand or act of cruelty and relies only on broad, omnibus assertions.
4.2. The statement of the minor child under
Section 164
Cr.P.C. was
recorded nearly two months after the incident and is therefore vulnerable to
tutoring and embellishment. The child's version alleging beatings and burn
injuries is entirely contradicted by the post-mortem report, which records no
external injuries on the body of the deceased.

4.3. There is no contemporaneous material, such as messages, audio or

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3131/2025 Page 3 of 10

Signing Date:26.11.2025

16:58:01

video recordings, written complaints, or any other documentary evidence, to
support the allegation of dowry-related harassment or sustained cruelty.
4.4. The Applicant has already been in custody for more than two years
and six months. Investigation is complete, the chargesheet has been filed,
and charges have been framed. Out of 29 listed witnesses, not a single one
has been examined so far, and the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near
future. Custodial interrogation is no longer required, and there is no
allegation that the Applicant has attempted to threaten witnesses or interfere
with the proceedings. In this backdrop, it is argued that further incarceration
would be unjustified and disproportionate.

5. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State, opposes the application on the
following grounds:

5.1. The case concerns death of a young married woman under unnatural
circumstances, within seven years of marriage, thereby attracting the
provisions of
Sections 304B
and
498A
IPC and the statutory presumption
under
Section 113B
of the Indian Evidence Act. In such circumstances, the
allegations cannot be viewed lightly at the stage of bail.
5.2. Reliance is placed on the material collected during investigation,
particularly the detailed allegations of dowry-related harassment made by
the complainant (father of the deceased) and the statement of the minor
daughter recorded under
Section 164
Cr.P.C. These material taken together,
prima facie indicate a sustained course of cruelty and harassment "in
connection with" dowry demands, and thus the essential ingredients of

Sections 304B
and
498A
IPC are duly made out, at this stage.
5.3 The supplementary statement of the complainant specifically alleges
that the deceased was beaten on 20-25 occasions on account of dowry

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3131/2025 Page 4 of 10

Signing Date:26.11.2025

16:58:01

demands. It is also stated that on one such occasion, about one and a half
years prior to the incident, the deceased left the matrimonial home and was
later traced at Banaras Railway Station. Further, it is recorded that on 03 rd
April, 2023, the deceased informed her mother that she had again been
assaulted, was being pressurised to bring money from her parental home,
and no longer wished to live. These assertions are corroborated by the
statements of the complainant's wife and son.

5.4. As per the Applicant's disclosure during interrogation, on the evening
of 03rd April, 2023, he was consuming alcohol with a relative and when the
deceased objected, a quarrel ensued, during which he slapped her and asked
her to bring money from her father. Thereafter, the deceased consumed
poison. The case diary also refers to a conversation retrieved from the
deceased's mobile phone between her and her father-in-law, in which she
reportedly complained of cruelty.

5.5. The allegations and the material reflect a sustained pattern of cruelty
and harassment related to dowry, and releasing the Applicant at this stage
may expose the complainant and other material witnesses, who are yet to be
examined, to potential pressure or intimidation, thereby affecting the
fairness of the trial.

ANALYSIS

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions and examined the
material placed on record, including the 164 statement of the minor
daughter, relied upon by the prosecution. The Applicant stands charged,
inter alia, under
Section 304B
IPC, which creates a distinct offence of
'dowry death' and is complemented by the statutory presumption under

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3131/2025 Page 5 of 10

Signing Date:26.11.2025

16:58:01

Section 113B
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.4 For that presumption to
arise, the prosecution must, at least prima facie, demonstrate: (i) the death of
a woman occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) such
death took place within seven years of marriage; and (iii) soon before her
death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his
relatives, in connection with any demand for dowry. Once these
foundational facts are established, the law permits a presumption that the
husband or his relatives caused the dowry death.

7. In the present case, the first two elements are, at this stage, not in
dispute. The marriage took place on 1st December, 2016, and the death
occurred on 4th April, 2023, due to ingestion of poison. The core issue, even
at the threshold, concerns the third requirement, namely, whether there is
material to indicate that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment
"soon before her death" and whether such treatment bears a proximate nexus
with any alleged demand for dowry.

8. The prosecution places reliance on the statement of the minor child,
aged about six years, recorded under
Section 164
Cr.P.C., to establish a
proximate link between the alleged dowry-related cruelty and the death. In
that statement, the child attributes physical assault to the Applicant on the
night preceding the incident, including allegations of beating and burning.
At the same time, as confirmed by the APP for the State, the post-mortem
report does not record any external injuries, burn marks, or other signs of
recent physical violence on the body. The statement of a child witness is
certainly relevant and cannot be disregarded; however at this stage, it can
only be observed that given the young age of the witness, the delay in
"the
Evidence Act
"

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3131/2025 Page 6 of 10

Signing Date:26.11.2025

16:58:01

recording the statement, and the absence of medical corroboration of recent
assault, its ultimate weight and reliability will require careful evaluation at
trial.

9. The prosecution also relies on the statement of the complainant (father
of the deceased), who asserts that on 03rd April, 2023, the deceased spoke to
her mother and complained of harassment, pressure to bring money, and loss
of will to live. Beyond these assertions, however, the material presently
available does not disclose any specific, time-linked instance of dowry-
related harassment in close proximity to the death, save for a general
allegation of a monetary payment in 2018 and broad references to past ill-
treatment.

10. There is also reference to a conversation retrieved from the deceased's
phone between her and her father-in-law, in which the deceased voices
certain grievances. However, on the material on record, it is not shown that
the conversation makes any specific reference to dowry or to a demand for
money soon before the incident, or that it records an occurrence directly
connected with the circumstances leading to the death. Whether this
conversation, read with other statements, ultimately satisfies the "soon
before" requirement is a matter that will fall for fuller examination at trial.

11. At this stage, the absence of medically-corroborated injuries and the
lack of proximate, time-linked allegations of dowry demand cast a prima
facie doubt on whether the necessary live link between alleged cruelty and
the death stands made out. Whether the prosecution ultimately establishes
the essential ingredients of the offences is a matter that will fall for
appreciation on the basis of the evidence that parties may adduce at trial and
cannot be pre-judged at the bail stage.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3131/2025 Page 7 of 10

Signing Date:26.11.2025

16:58:01

12. As per the nominal roll, the Applicant has undergone custody of more
than 2 years and 6 months. The investigation stands completed and a
chargesheet has already been filed. Charges have been framed and the
matter is now pending for recording of prosecution evidence. Out of 29 cited
witnesses, none has been examined so far. There is no material before this
Court to suggest that the Applicant has any past criminal antecedents, nor
has any specific instance been pointed out where he attempted to abscond or
interfered with the investigation. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to
proceed on the footing that the trial will take further time to reach
conclusion. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that prolonged pre-
trial incarceration, once investigation is over and the accused is no longer
required for custodial interrogation, must be approached with care,
particularly in the context of
Article 21
and the right to a speedy trial.

13. The general principles governing the grant of bail are well settled.
Bail is not to be withheld as a form of pre-trial punishment, and the primary
purpose of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at trial. 5 While
considering a bail application, due regard must be given to the nature and
gravity of the accusation, the severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction, the prima facie evaluation of the material, the likelihood of the
accused fleeing from justice, and the possibility of tampering with evidence
or influencing witnesses.

14. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, including the duration
of custody, the stage of the proceedings, the nature of the material on record,
and the settled principles governing grant of bail, this Court is of the view
See also:
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI
, (2012) 1 SCC 40;
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation
, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3131/2025 Page 8 of 10

Signing Date:26.11.2025

16:58:01

that the Applicant has made out a case for being released on bail. The
apprehensions expressed by the State that the Applicant may threaten or
intimidate the complainant or other witnesses can be addressed by imposing
stringent conditions.

15. Accordingly, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹25,000/- with two sureties of the
like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MM, on the
following conditions:

a. The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as and
when directed by the concerned IO;

b. The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or
tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;
c. The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country without
the permission of the Trial Court;

d. The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when
directed;

e. The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residing
after his release and shall not change the address without informing the
concerned IO/ SHO;

f. The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the
concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.
g. The Applicant shall report to the concerned PS on first Friday of
every 3 months;

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3131/2025 Page 9 of 10

Signing Date:26.11.2025

16:58:01

16. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry/complaint lodged
against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by
filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.

17. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are for
the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence
the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.

18. The bail application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.

SANJEEV NARULA, J
NOVEMBER 26, 2025

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 3131/2025 Page 10 of 10

Signing Date:26.11.2025

16:58:01